The (flawed) reasoning behind Net Neutrality, explained

[TemplarKormac]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

Netflix and Ebay support net neutrality as well (duh, wonder why)

Do they make it bad for America as well?

Interestingly Ebay and Netflix don't provide a necessary service. DUH wonder why?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Oh, there's big money involved, all right -- but it's not coming from Republicans.

It's coming from Progressive icon George Soros:

Soros Ford Foundation shovel 196 million to net neutrality groups staff to White House WashingtonExaminer.com

And if George Soros wants it, it's bad for America.

Netflix and Ebay support net neutrality as well (duh, wonder why)

Do they make it bad for America as well?

Duh you stupid bitch. They just became internet monopolies.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The best thing about this thread is that the OP.....an unemployed taker....is suggesting that he might have his high speed internet......which is paid for by his Granny...slowed down to match the poor people's speeds.

Weeeeeee!

Actually you just explained government control perfectly. The internet will be slowed down to the lowest denominator of speed for it to be fair. Nice job.

Idiot I mocked the OP's lack of understanding. And now I mock yours.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

They don't.....VoIP service is an internet transmission where data is converted into audio....If you wanted to pursue that logic, then services that offer internet streaming could be classified as "television"....As you know TV broadcasters are licensed by the FCC and every 5 years must petition the FCC and provide a period for public commentary for license renewal. Also in that public commentary is a provision that commercial over the air stations must act "in the public interest"...

What do you think is coming here, title 2 brings with it a requirement that an ISP serve the public good, just like TV stations, this is going to open a huge can of worms that will take years to sort out in the courts, unless congress gets involved and that will require a veto override. The dear leader won't go quietly.

Actually the opposite will occur. As with any regulation, it adds to the cost of the product. Regulation also attempts to control prices. However costs keep rising.
Two things will happen.
As the cost to provide exceeds the allowable ( by government regs) price, the provider will be forced to recover their expenses from another source. That could come in any number of sources. It could force ISP's to cut labor costs( layoffs of employees). It could result in less expensive technology made available( slower speeds, less capacity).
In an effort to comply with regulations, the ISP's instead of offering faster speeds to some areas, will provide ALL areas with a "standard rate (Mbps) and as a result no one will be able to access the speeds required for example gamers and those who like to watch bandwidth heavy content on their computers.
Again, if the ISP's will be prohibited by law from selling higher speed to those who wish to pay for it, no one will be happy.
This will insure equality. That we all are "equally miserable"....Better known as "the public good"...

 

[OKTexas]

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

 

[OKTexas]

That's why they are using title 2 of the 1934 telecommunications act, they think it will provide better legal cover.

I can grant you that it won't. Because both cases covered Title II as well. Cable companies are not "telecommunications" providers as it were. Meaning that Title II still does not apply to cable companies who provide broadband internet service via their cable transmission. My interpretation is that the word "telecommunication" implies there is a type of communication being carried out between provider and end user via their services, the problem here is, that (I think) your internet service nor your cable service are not in and of themselves a means of "telecommunication." They are simply services being provided in exchange for payment.

Even by its own act, the FCC exempted Broadband internet providers from Title II regulations, leaving open the possibility that they would nonetheless regulate their services in the future. Thus, Title II is still not an adequate legal cover.

Then how can cable providers offer telephone service?

They don't.....VoIP service is an internet transmission where data is converted into audio....If you wanted to pursue that logic, then services that offer internet streaming could be classified as "television"....As you know TV broadcasters are licensed by the FCC and every 5 years must petition the FCC and provide a period for public commentary for license renewal. Also in that public commentary is a provision that commercial over the air stations must act "in the public interest"...

What do you think is coming here, title 2 brings with it a requirement that an ISP serve the public good, just like TV stations, this is going to open a huge can of worms that will take years to sort out in the courts, unless congress gets involved and that will require a veto override. The dear leader won't go quietly.

Actually the opposite will occur. As with any regulation, it adds to the cost of the product. Regulation also attempts to control prices. However costs keep rising.
Two things will happen.
As the cost to provide exceeds the allowable ( by government regs) price, the provider will be forced to recover their expenses from another source. That could come in any number of sources. It could force ISP's to cut labor costs( layoffs of employees). It could result in less expensive technology made available( slower speeds, less capacity).
In an effort to comply with regulations, the ISP's instead of offering faster speeds to some areas, will provide ALL areas with a "standard rate (Mbps) and as a result no one will be able to access the speeds required for example gamers and those who like to watch bandwidth heavy content on their computers.
Again, if the ISP's will be prohibited by law from selling higher speed to those who wish to pay for it, no one will be happy.
This will insure equality. That we all are "equally miserable"....Better known as "the public good"...

All that to say we agree, damn.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?

Interestingly enough, this issue isn't garnering the response that I thought. I don't think the FCC will get away with this again.

Since Obama is behind this, if it is repealed. The media and the Obama fluffers on here will scream racism.

You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So?....What the fuck do you think they do now?
If a customer wants super high speeds, they can pay for it. Under net neutrality, that would be made illegal.
Now, you may think that because of this that everyone will have "equal access" to the highest of speeds and the government will regulate the price, but what will actually occur is the highest speeds will become unavailable. In effect net neutrality will slow( Dumb) down the internet.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The best thing about this thread is that the OP.....an unemployed taker....is suggesting that he might have his high speed internet......which is paid for by his Granny...slowed down to match the poor people's speeds.

Weeeeeee!

Actually you just explained government control perfectly. The internet will be slowed down to the lowest denominator of speed for it to be fair. Nice job.

Idiot I mocked the OP's lack of understanding. And now I mock yours.

You didn't accomplish either in any meaningful way. Better luck next time in not looking like a moron.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This was the governments attempt to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

That's because the providers hadn't made their move yet.

You people have no common sense. The internet providers oppose net neutrality because it stands in the way of their squeezing more money out of you.

That is the liberal narrative.
You think prices are expensive. Just wait...Government regulations do one of two things. Increase prices or result in a lesser product.
The government has no business sticking it's nose into a problem that doesn't exist.
This is nothing more than a political power grab. And it will end up costing us more to buy internet AND will limit content to what the powers in Washington deem appropriate.
The internet is the ultimate in free speech. To government, that's a problem.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because if I recall, all TV, internet, and telephone services a cable company provides (as of now) share the same cable connection, hence "bundles." If you are piggybacking telephone and broadband internet on one cable transmission, that leads me to believe the cable company, as it is so called, can be exempted from Title II, because that qualifies as a single transmission of a service or services, not a transmission of three different services via three different types of transmissions. The only way they could be regulated under Title II is if the services were distinguishably offered separately from one another, as previously stated.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

Wanna bet?..
Why are you in support of this change? What's in it for you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.

Absolutely. Internet access will be loaded up with all kinds of new fees and taxes.
These new regs will include mandates that for example guarantee high speed internet( HSI) to the most remote of places. THat will cost a ton of money. And of course the ISP's will be offered tax breaks and subsidies. The cost of which will be passed along to current users.
I would guess the cost of these fees and taxes will add perhaps 20 to 30% to our prices. And of course those unable or those who find ways to game the system will pay less..or nothing. That is the government's idea of "equal access"...

 

[OKTexas]

I'm playing devils advocate here, I mostly agree with you. But this argument doesn't hold water, my home phone and my DSL are carried over the same line, I pay the providers separately, I could use VOIP over my DSL but I can't have the DSL without the phone line.

Well, those are two different providers using the same line to provide two separate services though. Meaning that since you are paying for two different services, the exemption won't apply to them. When the same company is providing all the services via the same line, that is one transmission, not two or three providers transmitting three different services.

My argument is that it is the number of entities transmitting their services to you, the end user, is key in whether they are regulated under Title II or not. Charter, in my case is one entity transmitting three different services on the same line, the key here once again, is that there is only one entity providing those services, not three. Meaning that such could be construed as being able to exempt them from Title II.

Nothing would change if I used my phone provider for DSL, I don't because they are more expensive. It wouldn't change the fact that the pone company is primarily a phone provider, just like comcast is primarily a cable tv provider which is regulated.

I have to ask...Is there more than one Telephone company in your community?
The reason I ask is that DSL or Digital Subscriber Line, is carried by the local Telco. I think you may be paying two separate bills for your "DSL" but your teloco is in fact the company providing your internet.
If not, then you do not have DSL internet. Unless of course there are two telcos serving your area.

Just one phone company, but I use a different company for my ISP, if I used the phone company I'd still need the DSL filter and modem for it to work, just like the folks that use cable need a cable modem and I'm sure they need something else if they get phone service from the cable company along with the cable box.

Ahh ok...That is the same boat as myself....our area has Time Warner Cable. But my ISP is the former Earthlink. Because of the Time Warner AOL deal the government as a trade off mandated that Time Warner had to allow other ISP's to use their wire lines. So instead of the more expensive ( by $12 per month) I bought internet from Earthlink. Earthlink has been purchased by another company. Don;t know which. But my rate is grandfathered in....My neighbor across the street has the same speed level as I, but his is $62 per month. Mine is $50. I told him about it a couple years ago. Of course he was pissed.
I now understand your situation now...Thanks

Damn, I only have to pay $30 and am suppose to get 1.50 Mps download speeds, I don't, last speed test was .89 Mps. I have Peoplepc which is also Earthlink but they have their own home page.

 

[idb]

Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.

Absolutely. Internet access will be loaded up with all kinds of new fees and taxes.
These new regs will include mandates that for example guarantee high speed internet( HSI) to the most remote of places. THat will cost a ton of money. And of course the ISP's will be offered tax breaks and subsidies. The cost of which will be passed along to current users.
I would guess the cost of these fees and taxes will add perhaps 20 to 30% to our prices. And of course those unable or those who find ways to game the system will pay less..or nothing. That is the government's idea of "equal access"...

Wow - 20 to 30%!!!
Your guess is as high as that?
No wonder you're upset.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nothing says freedom like control and regulation

It will be regulated one way or another, it's just a matter of how. I can guarantee you are not one of the 0.01% of Americans who will be negatively impacted by net neutrality.

I should believe you, why? Too much was hidden before they voted....hmmmm sounds like Obunglescare, eh?

Your electricity? Public Utility

Your water? Most likely Public Utility

That bridge you cross on the road everyday? Public Utility

City Sewage? Public Utility

Airports? Mostly Public Utility

Gee....are you negatively impacted by any of these?

Uhh....That's infrastructure. A necessity.
Internet is a want. not a need. Just like pay tv. A luxury. Not a necessity.
BTW, roads are not public utilities. In fact we do not have a "right" to use a public road. Remember, the operation of a vehicle on a pubic right of way is a privilege granted by the state in which one resides. The state has the legal right to rescind that privilege. Roads are paid for by users. Not the public at large because roads are funded with fuel taxes. If one does not drive a vehicle, they do not pay for the upkeep of roadways.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As with everything else you post about, its obvious you have no real knowledge about the FCC.

Big money, will out.

Pay more and get less, cuz its the Great Republican Way, right sonny boy?



You idiot.

President Obama is not "behind" net neutrality and its damn lame of you to play the race card.

Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet.

Me stating the truth is not using the race card.

Did someone just say

"Fact is, if you RWs get your way, we will not have equality on the internet." Out loud?

Forgive me for saying so, but wasn't the internet already equal? There are gay sites, black sites, Muslim sites, Jewish sites, Christian sites, Democratic sites, Republican sites, this that or the other sites on the internet. There was nothing to suggest that it was unequal to begin with.

/facepalm

It "is" equal now...all sites get the same bandwidth speed. If net neutrality loses and the ISPs get their way then it won't be equal for all innovators since the ISPs can charge money to speed up your website.

So why do you think you need to apply your "level playing field" socialist crap to the internet? Thus, you attribute internet speeds to wealth, and that must be regulated and redistributed. So, why must those of us who have high speeds, be required to have slower speeds for the sake of those who can't afford higher speeds?

What part of that makes sense to you?

Oh my god dude, get a clue....

It's not the viewers that purchase/get higher speeds....it's the businesses or people who "produce" the content who would've had to pay the ISPs to have them send out their data to people at higher speeds.

Net neutrality also prevents ISPs from blocking (legal) content on the internet...so that anyone who wants to access anything anywhere can access it. It stops them from packaging bundles of selective company's data and ignoring all the rest.

The playing field is level as it is...right now, net neutrality supports the status quo, it's not a change. "Stopping" net neutrality would be the change. You are utterly confused.

The ISP's have every right to charge for the use of their property. So services such as Netflix and Amazon which are not paying anything to the ISP's now, will in the future because the ISP's are the ones providing the pipeline.
It follows the same scenario of how gasoline is distributed.
An oil company refines the oil into gasoline, The oil company must find a way to get their product to market. So they seek out and find a pipeline company with which to partner. That pipeline company then charges the oil company a fee to use their property..
The same applies to railroads. There is no reason why the ISP's should not have the same level playing field.
Now if netflix wants to avoid this charge, they are free to build their own system. Of course that would be cost prohibitive and would never happen.
To address your premise. If there is 'neutrality' now, why mess with what works?

 

[sealybobo]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Net neutrality = tax revenue mark my words.

Absolutely. Internet access will be loaded up with all kinds of new fees and taxes.
These new regs will include mandates that for example guarantee high speed internet( HSI) to the most remote of places. THat will cost a ton of money. And of course the ISP's will be offered tax breaks and subsidies. The cost of which will be passed along to current users.
I would guess the cost of these fees and taxes will add perhaps 20 to 30% to our prices. And of course those unable or those who find ways to game the system will pay less..or nothing. That is the government's idea of "equal access"...

Wow - 20 to 30%!!!
Your guess is as high as that?
No wonder you're upset.

Ok....When I had my own phone when I was living at home before the govt broke up the Bell System, I was paying $9 per month for my service.
In a year's time after the break up in 1985, my bill doubled....For precisely the SAME service....
I bet you think this new regulation is going to result in lower bills and faster speeds, correct?
Delusional.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law, Section 706(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been used twice before by the FCC to regulate broadband providers, and twice before has been struck down by the courts as not granting the FCC any specific authority to do so.

Specifically Comcast Corp. vs FCC, decided on April 6, 2010, in which was discussed whether the issue of ancillary authority exerted by the FCC had any merit. The assertion was struck down by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

Instead, the Commission [FCC] maintains that congressional policy by itself creates “statutorily mandated responsibilities” sufficient to support the exercise of section 4(i) ancillary authority. Not only is this argum
ent flatly inconsistent with Southwestern Cable, Midwest Video I, Midwest Video II, and NARUC II, but if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.

...

Because the Commission has never questioned, let alone overruled, that understanding of section 706, and because agencies “may not . . . depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1811 (2009), the Commission remains bound by its earlier conclusion that section 706 grants no regulatory authority.

And Verizon v. FCC which was handed down On January 14, 2014. In it, the issue of whether the FCC could once again try to compel all broadband service providers to treat all internet traffic as the same, no matter the source, or otherwise known as "net neutrality", was discussed. The FCC's case was struck down once again by the District of Columbia Circuit Court:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission’s still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of “telecommunications services” but instead as providers of “information services,” see supra at 9–10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): “A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); see also Wireless Broadband Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 5919 ¶ 50 (concluding that a “service provider is to be treated as a common carrier for the telecommunications services it provides, but it cannot be treated as a common carrier with respect to other, non -telecommunications services it may offer, including information services”)

...

Even though section 706 grants the Commission authority to promote broadband deployment by regulating how broadband providers treat edge providers, the Commission may not, as it recognizes, utilize that power in a manner that contravenes any specific prohibition contained in the Communications Act.

So, I am confident that section 706(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is being used by the FCC to regulate the internet, if that is the case, then this action will be nullified in the courts. Again. The FCC is so thickheaded that it cannot see that their attempts to neutralize the internet is beyond their congressionally granted power.

Bet you the corporations win this one.

For once I hope they do. Leave my internet the hell alone!